Look, not to be too explicit about this, but the use of full body scanners won’t make a damned bit of difference to someone who wants to smuggle a bomb or bomb components onto a plane (or anywhere else.) Because there are these things called body cavities, where people have actually been known to insert and hide stuff.

The Dutch have already announced that henceforth all passengers heading to the US will have to go through such scanners. Yesterday on All Things Considered I listened to professional fear-monger and former Bush Administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff claim that full body scanners are the solution, but that the evil ACLU had thwarted their use:

Mr. CHERTOFF: Well, a couple of years ago we began the process of testing them to see, first of all, if they worked and second, if they could be deployed without unduely restricting the flow of traffic. And the good news is that we were able to demonstrate that they were successful. We could use them without slowing up traffic and we could also protect privacy.

The difficulty is the ACLU and other similar organizations began a very aggressive campaign to limit or prevent the use of these machines and it culminated frankly last year in a vote by the House of Representatives to be very sharply restricted of the use of these machines. So, although we have acquired these machines, they are not as widely deployed as they should be.

But lawmakers have been among those reluctant to deploy the machines. In June, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to restrict their use. The vote was big — 310-118 — and bipartisan. Members of both parties said they were concerned that the pictures were too intrusive and questioned their effectiveness.

That’s what also worries privacy groups, which have mounted a major campaign against the machines, now being tested at 19 U-S airports. They say there’s no guarantee the pictures won’t be misused.

“There’s nothing to prevent images from being retained even when they say they won’t be retained,” says Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group at the forefront of the campaign.

But above and beyond the privacy concerns, is the simple fact that just scanning what is on the outside of someone’s body, or in their carry-on, or in their luggage, is insufficient. Because you can insert sufficient explosive into your rectum to do serious damage. In fact, it’s already been done on at least one occasion this year:

On the evening of Aug. 28, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi Deputy Interior Minister — and the man in charge of the kingdom’s counterterrorism efforts — was receiving members of the public in connection with the celebration of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting. As part of the Ramadan celebration, it is customary for members of the Saudi royal family to hold public gatherings where citizens can seek to settle disputes or offer Ramadan greetings.

One of the highlights of the Friday gathering was supposed to be the prince’s meeting with Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri, a Saudi man who was a wanted militant from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Al-Asiri had allegedly renounced terrorism and had requested to meet the prince in order to repent and then be accepted into the kingdom’s amnesty program.

* * *

But the al-Asiri case ended very differently from the al-Awfi case. Unlike al-Awfi, al-Asiri was not a genuine repentant — he was a human Trojan horse. After al-Asiri entered a small room to speak with Prince Mohammed, he activated a small improvised explosive device (IED) he had been carrying inside his anal cavity. The resulting explosion ripped al-Asiri to shreds but only lightly injured the shocked prince — the target of al-Asiri’s unsuccessful assassination attempt.

I’ve joked about this as the TSA’s “Grab your ankles, please” moment – but as a matter of simple fact, unless we actually go to full body-cavity searches, we cannot prevent this technique from being used in the future. Anything short of that is nothing more than a minor annoyance for terrorists, and an intrusion into the privacy of all other individuals who fly. Do we *really* want to take that step?

In the wake of the terrorism attempt Friday on a Northwest Airlines flight, federal officials on Saturday imposed new restrictions on travelers that could lengthen lines at airports and limit the ability of international passengers to move about an airplane.

The government was vague about the steps it was taking, saying that it wanted the security experience to be “unpredictable” and that passengers would not find the same measures at every airport — a prospect that may upset airlines and travelers alike.

But several airlines released detailed information about the restrictions, saying that passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps. It was not clear how often the rule would affect domestic flights.

The Department of Homeland Security immediately put additional screening measures into place- for all domestic and international flights- to ensure the continued safety of the traveling public. We are also working closely with federal, state and local law enforcement on additional security measures, as well as our international partners on enhanced security at airports and on flights.

The American people should continue their planned holiday travel and, as always, be observant and aware of their surroundings and report any suspicious behavior or activity to law enforcement officials.

Passengers flying from international locations to U.S. destinations may notice additional security measures in place. These measures are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere.

Multiple sources, among them Xeni Jardin of Boing Boing, have also been told that no electronics are allowed on international flights. None. So you can’t even play video games to distract yourself from how badly you have to pee.

I thought I would repost this item from the end of 2006. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all – I hope yours have the meaning you create.

Jim D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had lunch the other day with an old friend and fellow atheist. It’s ironic that we really only get to see one another during the Christmas period, when he is in town to visit family.

In the course of the wide-ranging conversation (we share many opinions, and differ just enough on some others to keep things lively), he mentioned that he thought that what my wife and I were doing in caring for her mom was praiseworthy.

I thanked him, and explained something I usually don’t tell people. I told him that some time back, when my wife and I were discussing such plans with her mom (back when she could do so, understanding the relevant issues), she indicated that she didn’t want to go to a nursing home, but wanted to stay in her home of 50+ years until she died. Nothing unusual in that – it is a common enough desire. But I felt that since she, herself, had cared for a child born with a significant disability (cerebral palsy) for over 40 years, she deserved to have her wish honored, insofar as we were able to do so.

My friend nodded. “Without having recourse to a heaven for our rewards, we have to create the ‘meaning’ of our life here, now, ourselves, and do the same for others when we can.”

I think that this is something that theists just do not understand about us atheists. Or perhaps the implications of it just scares the living daylights out of them. Without a sky-daddy, or tribunal, or Karmic Wheel, or Big Magic JuJu Guy (thanks, Hank, I love that!) to sit in judgment of our lives and hand out punishments and rewards, the *responsibility* for making this life have meaning is ours and ours alone. We don’t get to pass the buck upstairs, or just shrug and say that it is in God’s hands. We, and only we, can work to make things better. With all of the resources available to us, with the powers created by human ingenuity, we could make this world, this life, a paradise, if we so choose. That we haven’t, that much of the world still lives in poverty and fear, that much of our energy is turned to hate and destruction, is one hell of an indictment.

May we all work to have a better year than this one has been. Best wishes,

Yup, this is post #800. And since I’ve gone this far, I should at least see it to 910.

OK, I’m in a bit of a silly mood. Blame it on the big muckin’ storm rolling our way.

Anyway, 800 posts. It’s been 6 months since the last big round number, so it looks like I have slowed down some in my posting, but not a lot. Since then, there have been another 12,000 hits to this blog, and about 5,000 more downloads of the novel. I’ll have a final tally on the year after the 1st, but it looks like things have picked up a bit overall in 2009.

Have a Merry Christmas, everyone. Be safe if you have to travel. And try not to let the family drive you nuts.

Q: Is the ButtCandle really a candle?
A: Yes, but not necessarily what you might picture as your dining room table variety of candle. In length and diameter, it’s similiar to common candles. However, a hollow channel is cut from bottom to top which causes air to be drawn from the base to the top. In practice, this creates a vacuum at the base which, when inserted in the rectum, gently dislodges intestinal and rectal blockage.

Yup. ButtCandle. Which is just like it sounds. A candle that you stick in your butt, then light “with the 10″ wooden match that is provided.” You know, like those silly “Ear Candles” that you can find in woo-shops? Which is how I stumbled across it, over on Phil Plait’s site.

Don’t use it after having chili, though.

Jim Downey

*OK, this is a passage from Twain, which was originally referencing a bawdy story that was popular in the 19th century about a vaudville performance featuring some git with a candle stuck in his butt who pranced around on stage with the thing lit. Yeah, I know, obscure. Blame it on grad school.

Well, maybe there is a use for Twitter, after all. Seems that in the middle of the big snowstorm smacking the East Coast, some folks in DC decided to organize a good ol’ fashioned snowball fight. You know, show up, informal sides, throw snowballs at one another. Some 150 – 200 people joined in. And everyone was having just too much fun.

Until some idiot in a Hummer drives through the intersection where this party is going on, and his vehicle gets smacked by a few snowballs. Said idiot jumps out of said Hummer, and draws a gun.

WTF?

Seriously, that’s what happened. There were plenty of witnesses, plenty of pictures, plenty of video. Here’s a good one, where you can clearly see the gun in his left hand:

Nice, eh?

And here’s the *really* good part: the guy in question is a D.C. police detective, tentatively identified as Detective Baylor. But don’t take my word for it, here he is himself:

D.C. police have said they are investigating the incident. Assistant Chief Pete Newsham, who leads the department’s investigative services bureau, has said the detective in question “was armed but never pulls his weapon.” Photos and videos posted online appear to contradict that, though none show the detective pointing his gun at anyone.

* * *

According to Newsham, the detective approached the group of snowball fighters and had “some kind of interaction” with them. He said the detective holstered a cellphone, and someone from the crowd called to report a man with a gun.

“I think what probably happens is somebody probably saw his gun and called the police,” Newsham said.

OK, there are many things wrong with this . . . First, the behaviour of those who threw snowballs at the Hummer, but that’s a pretty mild transgression. Then there’s Detective Baylor’s behaviour is jumping out of his vehicle – again, a fairly mild transgression, and an understandable one for most people. But then the idiot pulled his weapon. Because people were throwing snowballs?? Are you fucking kidding me???

He’s frankly lucky that he didn’t get shot when uniformed officers showed up on the scene, after someone did call in a “man with a gun”. Kudos to the reporting officers for keeping their heads about them, in dealing with Baylor and with the crowd.

But what may even be worse was the knee-jerk reaction of Assistant Chief Newsham in dismissing the reports that one of his detectives behaved in a manner which is completely unacceptable. Supporting your officers is one thing – making statements to the press blankly denying that what happened, happened, is extremely unwise. Detective Baylor may need some anger management classes, or to be moved to a nice desk job or something. Newsham needs to lose some rank or even his job.

Why? Well, because he has just betrayed the public, and even the officers in his department. You deny reality (or jump in prematurely) like this and you show that you cannot be trusted to appropriately investigate any charges against your officers. Do that, and the public will respond appropriately by not providing you their faith and cooperation. Furthermore, and this is the thing that really pisses me off, they won’t trust your officers, either, and not give them their help and cooperation. And cops need all the help they can get.

Thousands of Oak Park residents are being equipped with a simple device to help fight crime in the village.

Police are passing out whistles that they are urging citizens to blow if they are victims of or witnesses to a crime.

Officers distributed hundreds of the shiny whistles at two stations along the CTA’s Green Line in Oak Park on Friday and will be passing out more Wednesday along the Blue Line. Giveaways elsewhere are expected to take place in the weeks ahead.

The village conducted a similar program in the 1980s, and Police Chief Rick Tanksley earlier this year suggested bringing it back after statistics showed that burglaries and robberies were on the rise.

I’m sure that criminals will now flee Oak Park, in the face of this devastating new crime-fighting tool. I mean, they might actually have their hearing damaged, should a brave citizen use their police-issued whistle. And based on previous experience, and the complete eradication of crime in Oak Park following the last time this tactic was used . . .

. . . wait, what’s that? You mean crime wasn’t eliminated in Oak Park by the whistles last time? Huh. Maybe that would explain why this brilliant program hasn’t been put into effect in cities around the country.

Then why do it? Well, here’s another small bit from the Tribune article:

The village had about 3,000 whistles delivered at a cost of about 50 cents each, he said. The cost was paid by Community Bank, whose logo is on the side of each whistle.

I mean, I hate to be cynical or anything, especially this time of year, but it sure seems like nothing but an advertising gimmick to me. One backed by the boys in blue. I wonder who in the city government got what kind of special favor for that little trick?

Now, in all honesty, I do actually carry a whistle with me. No kidding. But when it comes to wanting a defense against crime, I’d prefer one of my concealed-carry pistols.